My question involves real estate located in the State of: Wisconsin
I want to start by saying two things, first I’m not sure that this is the best area to post this but I couldn’t find a better one, and second I do understand that the neighbor B in the following situation has the right to sue I’m more concerned about the damages they are suing for.
The situation as I understand it:
Neighbor A clears their back yard of over grown wild trees and shrubs, two of the medium/small wild trees are on Neighbor B’s land. After clearing the weeds and trees grass is put in and the yard cleaned.
Previous to this and currently Neighbor B keeps their property almost void of trees so now there is continuous grass from A’s yard to B’s yard (it looks nicer).
Neighbor B sues A for cutting the trees down. I understand up to here that they are in the right as regardless of the tree type and what it looks like before or after the trees belong to B.
However, when they sue it is for $20,000 to replace the two wild trees, they also want emotional damages as they say they buried their cat under the tree. The ground / cat was not disturbed in the cutting and as far as we can tell it is illegal to bury a dead pet in that area.
B also owns a very large piece of land and has previously attempted to buy the smaller land from A.
I am not directly involved so there may be particulars that I am not aware of, but what is listed is true.
My question is if there is a concern for A to lose the property to B. Additionally, would the court actually consider the $20,000 plus emotional distress to be reasonable for two wild grown trees?
I want to start by saying two things, first I’m not sure that this is the best area to post this but I couldn’t find a better one, and second I do understand that the neighbor B in the following situation has the right to sue I’m more concerned about the damages they are suing for.
The situation as I understand it:
Neighbor A clears their back yard of over grown wild trees and shrubs, two of the medium/small wild trees are on Neighbor B’s land. After clearing the weeds and trees grass is put in and the yard cleaned.
Previous to this and currently Neighbor B keeps their property almost void of trees so now there is continuous grass from A’s yard to B’s yard (it looks nicer).
Neighbor B sues A for cutting the trees down. I understand up to here that they are in the right as regardless of the tree type and what it looks like before or after the trees belong to B.
However, when they sue it is for $20,000 to replace the two wild trees, they also want emotional damages as they say they buried their cat under the tree. The ground / cat was not disturbed in the cutting and as far as we can tell it is illegal to bury a dead pet in that area.
B also owns a very large piece of land and has previously attempted to buy the smaller land from A.
I am not directly involved so there may be particulars that I am not aware of, but what is listed is true.
My question is if there is a concern for A to lose the property to B. Additionally, would the court actually consider the $20,000 plus emotional distress to be reasonable for two wild grown trees?
Surveys: Trees Cut Down
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire